Maples v. Peck

Connecticut Superior Court

Maples v. Peck

1 Root 140

DecidedSeptember 15, 1789

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 140 (Maples v. Peck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maples v. Peck, 1 Root 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 1789).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The action is brought upon a special undertaking and promise. The presumption is, that the officer has done his duty, unless the contrary is averred. The allegations supposed to be wanting in the declaration, are not necessary; and if the defendants would avail themselves of them, they ought to have plead the payment or reversal in bar, and that the goods were returned to the owner. Same point' adjudged in an action brought by Hartshorn, an officer, upon a receipt for a horsh taken on execution, against Halsey, at New London, September 1784. '

This judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Errors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

The action is brought upon a special undertaking and promise. The presumption is, that the officer has done his duty, unless the contrary is averred. The allegations supposed to be wanting in the declaration, are not necessary; and if the defendants would avail themselves of them, they ought to have plead the payment or reversal in bar, and that the goods were returned to the owner. Same point' adjudged in an action brought by Hartshorn, an officer, upon a receipt for a horsh taken on execution, against Halsey, at New London, September 1784. '

This judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of Errors.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maples-v-peck-connsuperct-1789.